Profitability of Star Trek Movies

[CorporalCaptain]

Anybody else notice the goal post shift from "failed" to "may [sic] good profit but it underperformed overall"?

 

[BillJ]

Anybody else notice the goal post shift from "failed" to "may [sic] good profit but it underperformed overall"?

Yeah. That is what happens to most of these threads. They hop from complaint to complaint to complaint as each one is debunked.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know why, for some people, it's not enough to say they didn't like the movie. No, the movie must have failed. That way Trek can return to the "proper" universe. I guess I just answered my own question.

 

[Amaris]

Agreed. Just say "I didn't like the movie because it didn't meet my personal expectations of what I feel Star Trek represents."

Hell, anyone who feels this way, feel free to grab the above text and use it at your convenience. It would certainly reduce the number of threads and posts where people spend page after page trying to find "legitimate" ways to put down something they simply do not like.

 

[Dukhat]

Agreed. Just say "I didn't like the movie because it didn't meet my personal expectations of what I feel Star Trek represents."

I didn't like ENT because it didn't meet my personal expectation of what I feel the founding of the Federation should have represented. Although I could make a pretty convincing argument that it was, indeed, a failure.

And yet I don't feel the need to constantly bitch about it in the ENT forum. Except of course when it's that time of year to bash TATV. But that's ok, because everybody hates TATV.

 

[M'Sharak]

I don't know if I'd say he's connecting dots which aren't there, but he certainly isn't making a case for anything with this post:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/...-to-co-write-star-trek-3.html#~p26OCHeUu7gbuh

Seems to be some[highlight],[/highlight] very drastic changes happening to the creative team[highlight],[/highlight] personally I think it's very indicative of the studio's disappointment with Into Darkness's performance

It's more like he's telling us that there are dots connected without showing any of the dots or connecting lines. (Unless those misplaced commas are the lines, in which case we're still missing the pertinent dots.)

If this thread is going to continue, Giarc, you're going to have to do better than that. Come up with some credible support for your assertions, or this is just a waste of everyone's time.

And it's as I thought: nothing.

Thread closed.